Defining knowledge: an epistemological foundation for knowledge

Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
Defining Knowledge: an Epistemological Foundation for Knowledge Management
John Biggam
Glasgow Caledonian University
Division of Business Information Management
Caledonian Business School
Glasgow G732QS
Scotland
J.Biggam@gcal.ac.uk
Abstract
Knowledge Management is a field of increasing
popularity, within both the academic arena and the
business community. However, although there is an
abundance of advice on how to develop and manipulate
knowledge-based systems (particularly through the
medium of web sites), there is still confusion within the
Knowledge Management community of what actually
constitutes knowledge (this often manifests itself through
poor university and business “home pages” on the
Internet). This paper attempts to clarify the meaning of
knowledge and thus provide strong conceptual
foundations for the discipline of Knowledge Management.
In doing so, criteria for knowledge will be established,
together with an elicitation of different types of
knowledge.
1. Introduction
The World Wide Web plays an important role in
facilitating new avenues for competitive advantage in the
business community (Laudon and Laudon [1]). As a first
step to gaining competitive advantage, companies are
creating Web Sites to enable customers to view business
service catalogues (Berthon et al. [2]; Runge et al. [3]).
Web usage, however, has not been problem-free.
Fears over security of online transactions and the
vulnerability of confidential information have been
expressed by many researchers (Kyas [4]; Skinner [5];
Biggam [6]; Gollman [7]; Biggam and Hogarth [8]).
Increasingly, researchers are also questioning the
quality of Web Sites (Bennet et al. [9]; Jeong and
Lambert [10]). The main criticisms concentrate on the
quality of the information provided and the relevance to
customer requirements.
Web sites can be viewed from two main perspectives:
1) the technical creation and maintenance of the web site
(software used, multimedia tools, programming
techniques, etc.); and 2) the knowledge that the web site
reflects about an organisation (e.g. services it offers,
history of successful projects, staff profiles, etc.). The
technical ability required to create a web site is relatively
undemanding. However, researchers are now questioning
the ease by which web sites can be created and the danger
that the knowledge that appears on the web site may be
lacking proper management.
The field of Knowledge Management, although
relatively new, is having an impact on business processes
(Probst et al. [11]). This field emphasises the need to
understand how knowledge is used in order to be better
placed to utilise knowledge for competitive advantage
(Hamel and Prahalad [12]; Lester [13]; O’Dell and
Grayson [14]).
Universities are also keen to exploit the Internet. The
contents of a university web site contain knowledge on
teaching programmes, research activities, consultancies,
etc. Below is an example of a university web site:
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
Figure 1. University Web Site
1
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
It is important that universities, and businesses,
understand their web site contents, and the processes to
produce and maintain these contents, from a Knowledge
Management perspective.
For instance, does the
knowledge on Glasgow Caledonian University’s web site
accurately reflect activities in the university? How was
this knowledge obtained? How is it utilised? Is the
knowledge used to best advantage? Indeed, what is the
purpose of Glasgow Caledonian University’s web site?
These are all issues pertinent to Knowledge Management.
However, a more fundamental issue is of concern to
the author. For the academic discipline of Knowledge
Management to progress it needs to be built on strong
conceptual foundations.
Unfortunately, within the
Knowledge Management community, there is still much
confusion over what actually constitutes knowledge
(Alavi and Leidner [15]). Andreu and Seiber [16] echo
this view when they write that not “everybody
understands the same under the name KM”. Sharifi and
Button [17] emphasise this disparity of opinion: “there is
a kind of confusion about what knowledge is or is not”.
The purpose of this paper is to try and address this issue
and therefore contribute to the development of
Knowledge Management.
2. What Constitutes Knowledge?
What is knowledge? Does knowledge differ from
opinion or belief?
Are there different types of
knowledge?
How do we decide what constitutes
knowledge? As a starting point in an attempt to
understand the concept of knowledge, a variety of
definitions and schools of thought will be examined.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary [18] defines
knowledge as:
“1. a) awareness or familiarity gained by experience (of a
person, fact, or thing) b) a person’s range of information.
2. a) a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject,
language, etc. b) the sum of what is known. 3. true,
justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to
opinion.”
This definition can be more properly described as a
collection of definitions. Do they make sense? Are they
compatible? How do they contribute to our understanding
of Knowledge?
3. The Empiricist View
The first definition in the above list states that
knowledge is an “awareness or familiarity gained by
experience (of a person, fact, or thing)”. This definition
follows in the tradition of the school of philosophers
referred to as empiricists. They believe that knowledge
can only be acquired through experience (Hume [19];
Gibson [20]; Yolton [21]). The main contributors to this
view have included the philosophers Locke, Berkely,
Bacon and Hobbes (Russell [22]). As Locke [23] the
recognised founder of British empiricism, born in 1632,
put it:
“Let us suppose that the mind to be, as we say, white
paper, void of all characters, without any ideas; how
comes it to be furnished? When comes it by that vast
store, which the busy and boundless fancy of man has
painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has
it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I
answer in one word, from experience: in that all our
knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives
itself” (Book II, chap. I, sec 2, p33).
If knowledge can be gained only through experience
then this would mean that we could only claim to know
that a successful general called Julius Caesar ruled Rome
and was assassinated more than two thousand years ago if
and only if we experienced Caesar’s rule and
assassination.
Indeed, much of what we view as
knowledge of our world, past and present, would need to
be discounted as knowledge.
Within a University context, if the empiricist view of
knowledge was adopted, then students could only claim to
have acquired knowledge if and only if the subjects they
studied contained practical elements. If a lecturer taught
students theoretical aspects of Information Systems
Development, for example, and the students had no
experience of developing information systems, then
according to the empiricist school of thought, the students
had no right to state that they were knowledgeable in the
area of Information Systems Development. Perhaps,
though, in a subconscious way, employers and
universities do lend partial support to the empiricist
argument when they hold student placement schemes in
high regard. Such experience is often held up as a
valuable experience, something that enhances the
student’s education, thus perhaps reflecting a tendency to
value knowledge acquired through experience greater
than theoretical knowledge.
Another problem with the empiricist definition of
knowledge (“awareness or familiarity gained by
experience”) is that it makes no distinction between truth
and falsehood. Suppose that a student has a small group
of friends, and that these friends have engaged in
plagiarism throughout their university education, and,
suppose further, that these collection of experiences lead
him to believe that plagiarism is acceptable behaviour for
a student; then according to the definition that knowledge
is “awareness or familiarity gained by experience” the
student could claim to know this to be the case. Yet
plagiarism is not acceptable behaviour, so the student
cannot claim to know: he can only claim to have a belief.
Truth ought to be a prerequisite of knowledge, in order to
distinguish it from false belief (definition 3. supports this
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
2
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
view: “true, justified belief; certain understanding, as
opposed to opinion”).
Lastly, the empiricist approach to what constitutes
knowledge has difficulty explaining knowledge derived
by rational thought (as opposed to knowledge derived by
experience).
This would mean that any conclusions that we arrived
at about our environment through the use of reasonable
and logical thought processes would not count as
knowledge. The absurd effect of this would be that only
that which our senses had experienced would count as
knowledge. Which means that our knowledge of the
world would be extremely limited, if not negligible.
However, as Descartes [24] pointed out, our senses
sometimes deceive us (e.g. hallucinations during illness,
mirages, mistaken identities, optical illusions, etc.),
therefore experienced knowledge is often unreliable and
should not have a greater claim to knowledge than that
gained from rational thought.
What, then, can we conclude about the view of
knowledge expressed in the Concise Oxford Dictionary,
that knowledge is “awareness or familiarity gained by
experience”? Yes, knowledge can be gained through
experience, but this is not the only way one can acquire
knowledge. It can also be achieved through rational
thought. Importantly, for something to be accepted as
knowledge it must be true (this helps distinguish between
fact and belief). This latter point could aid in one
fundamental aspect of the development of the University
web site, in that those responsible for their University web
site must be sure, prior to displaying information, that
what is presented is accurate and not merely based on
beliefs.
4. Knowledge as a Person’s Range of
Information
The definition of knowledge as a “person’s range of
information” is contradictory to the previous definition of
knowledge (“awareness or familiarity gained by
experience”). Whereas the latter definition confines
knowledge to personal experience, the former accepts
non-experiential knowledge (i.e. rational thought).
However, it is the latter definition that is limited and
debilitating (as discussed earlier), and it is the former
definition, although somewhat vague, that has the
advantage of not excluding rational thought as a means of
acquiring knowledge.
Once again, though, there exists the problem of a
definition of knowledge not distinguishing between truth
and falsehood. For example, a member of the public may
hold information about a particular university, but the
view may be biased and based on gossip rather than on
fact, yet because this belief is clearly a part of this
“person’s range of information”, then it would, according
to the above criteria, count as knowledge.
Knowledge as a “person’s range of information”
presents knowledge acquisition as an active process.
Information is data that has been interpreted (either by the
perceiver or someone else) in a way that is understandable
to the perceiver (Sajama and Kamppinen [25]). This
means that knowledge cannot simply be given to
someone, as one would give a present, but that the
receiver, in order to become knowledgeable, must become
involved in the knowledge acquisition process. This view
is supported by definition 2a (“a theoretical or practical
understanding …”). This has clear implications for
universities and web site development: universities, if
they wish to impart knowledge to the web site visitor,
ought to design their web site in such a way as to leave
the visitor with an understanding of the university’s
services, culture, etc. (i.e. provide information).
5. Definition of Knowledge
In essence, the above discussion produces the
following criteria in establishing what counts as
knowledge:
• It must be true
• The perceiver must believe this to be the case
Suppose that a business student with no mathematical
background where to memorise Euclid’s Elements
(Dedron [26]) and that the student believes these
mathematical statements to be correct. According to the
above two criteria the student would be knowledgeable in
Euclid’s Elements. This is patently absurd: the student,
through rote-learning, has merely memorised the
Elements. He is in no position to judge their validity or
otherwise. This tells us that another criteria needs to be
added to the above two criteria in order for something to
count as knowledge:
• It must be true
• The perceiver must believe this to be the case
• The perceiver must be in a position to know this to be
the case (Gettier [27])
Someone could claim to “know this to be the case”
either by personal understanding (e.g. he has a degree in
mathematics) or through the word of an acclaimed expert
in the field. This third criteria also implies that for
knowledge to occur, the perceiver has gone through an
active process towards acceptance of a fact (this protects
against the claim that those who merely repeat “facts”
through rote-learning are acquiring knowledge: what they
are acquiring are words, remembered like a mantra, not
knowledge).
However, is there knowledge that does not meet the
above three criteria? The above conditions refer to
“factual knowledge”, e.g. that man has walked on the
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
3
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
moon. But what about knowledge gained through
experience, e.g. “practical knowledge”? An example of
this latter type of knowledge is knowledge on how to
complete a research paper. Or knowledge of how to
repair a flat tyre. The three criteria for establishing
knowledge is still applicable: for instance, in the case of
the research paper, what the tutor says about completing a
research paper must be true (although there may be
different correct ways, thus allowing for more than one
“truth”), the student must believe this to be the case, and
she must be in a position to believe this (e.g. trusts the
tutor, has followed the advice before, understands the
process, etc.).
Knowledge gained through experience, particularly
practical knowledge, ought to count as knowledge,
although it also ought to be recognised that it is a different
type of knowledge from factual knowledge.
What about knowledge of people, places and things?
This is sometimes referred to as “knowledge by
aquaintance?” (‘A Dictionary of Philosophy’ [28]). If a
University has an excellent reputation in research should
this count as knowledge? Yes, provided the three criteria
established earlier still hold. That is, what is being
claimed is true, it is believed to be the case, and the
person making the claim is in a position to support the
claim.
6. A Knowledge Management Perspective
What is the definition of knowledge given by
academics and practitioners of the discipline entitled
Knowledge Management? The following quotations from
papers included in the University of Warwick’s
conference proceedings on Knowledge Management
(2000) provide an excellent bird’s eye view of how
knowledge is perceived within the Knowledge
Management community:
• “Traditionally researchers have distinguished
between tacit and explicit knowledge” (Wensley
[29])
• “Thus the authors argue that a complex picture of
‘everyday reality’ of organisational knowledge
needs to be developed” (Shepherd et al. [30])
• “… this paper will critique the current pre-occupation
of the KM literature with the duality of explicit and
tacit knowledge … we argue that organisational
knowledge must not be viewed as a static commodity
that can be easily transferred, but as dynamic process
…” (Bohm [31])
• “External knowledge [and] internal knowledge”
(Andreu and Seiber [16])
• “ … we take a social constructivist approach rather
than seeing knowledge as something static and easily
discovered …” (Bergquist [32])
•
“It is suggested that the dynamic, and emergent
character of the concept of knowing more accurately
represents how understanding in organisations is
based in processes of ongoing practice than static
conceptions of knowledge” (Hislop et al. [33])
• “A common way of emphasising the human nature of
much knowledge is through the notion of tacit
knowledge” (Whitley [34])
• “Our instinctive skills, often, favour the fixed and the
static, …” (Sharifi and Button [17])
• “There are some who question how far it is possible
to convert tacit into explicit knowledge” (Marshall
and Sapsed [35])
• “Much of the firm’s strategically relevant knowledge,
we argue, will reside in the tacit form …” (Tovstiga
[36])
• “We also suppose that knowledge systems are
dynamic and organic, …” (Spender [37])
• “… organisational knowledge is much talked about
but little understood” (Tsoukas [38])
Clearly, within the Knowledge Management
community, there are different views of what is meant by
Knowledge. Nevertheless, how can we categorise the
different views of knowledge represented by the
Knowledge Management community and how do these
views fit in with earlier discussions in this paper viz-a-vis
knowledge as factual, practical, of people, etc. and based
on certain criteria?
The matrix below illustrates the “knowledge
opposites” that are perceived by academics and
practitioners:
Explicit
Organisational
Static
External
Tacit
V
Personal
Dynamic
Internal
V
V
V
Figure2. Knowledge Dichotomy Matrix
In what way is tacit knowledge different from explicit
knowledge? Tacit knowledge refers to knowledge that is
understood or implied without being stated (derived from
Latin tacitus, meaning “silent”). An example of such
knowledge would be the unwritten procedure for
providing students with a successful lecture (like riding a
bike, there may be certain guidelines, but for the most part
they are undeclared). Explicit knowledge is knowledge
that is stated, e.g. procedures for student appeals. This
paper is an attempt to make explicit our tacit
understanding of what we mean by knowledge!
Describing knowledge as either tacit or explicit does
not provide an understanding of what constitutes
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
4
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
knowledge: it merely illustrates that knowledge can either
be expressed or it can remain undeclared. That is not to
say that the tacit/explicit dichotomy is unhelpful in
exploiting knowledge: on the contrary, recognising that
much of what occurs in an organisation remains tacit is an
important stage in the desire to exploit knowledge for
competitive advantage.
How does personal knowledge differ from
organisational knowledge? The goal of many businesses
is to make explicit the skills and knowledge that remain
personal to employees. Organisational knowledge is seen
as collective knowledge that helps distinguish one
organisation from another. Personal knowledge will
involve a combination of tacit and explicit knowledge;
therefore, organisational knowledge will similarly consist
of a collection of tacit and explicit knowledge. However,
what counts as personal knowledge or organisational
knowledge (as opposed to opinion)?
Dynamic knowledge emphasises that knowledge often
changes and is influenced by cultural factors, i.e. it rarely
remains fixed. Once again, although useful in that one
can appreciate that knowledge is a “shifting sand”, the
“dynamic v static” dichotomy offers no clarification on
criteria for knowledge itself.
“Internal v external” knowledge offers the obvious
distinction that an organisation’s knowledge can come
from inside the firm, or from outside the firm. In fact,
this distinction is too simplistic because no organisation
operates in a vacuum, and therefore knowledge comes
from within and from outwith.
How do the above knowledge dichotomies fit in with
the expressed view that there are different types of
knowledge, specifically that
1. there is “factual” knowledge;
2. there is “practical” knowledge; and
3. there is knowledge of people, places and things?
None of the above knowledge dichotomies contradict
the aforementioned types of knowledge. For instance:
tacit knowledge can be factual, practical and of people
etc. Similarly, with the other knowledge categories
(explicit, personal, organisational, dynamic, static,
internal and external).
Are we not simply replacing one type of knowledge
with another type (e.g. tacit with factual, etc.)? No. The
benefit is that incidences of knowledge from all the
different knowledge dichotomies can be more helpfully
categorised within one of the three types (factual,
practical or of people, etc.). For instance, incidences of
explicit knowledge (e.g personnel procedures) can be
placed in the appropriate knowledge type (e.g. factual
interview procedures). This can be of benefit in later
attempts to exploit that knowledge. Without this new
“umbrella category”, the different knowledge dichotomies
remain separate and apparently unrelated.
The knowledge dichotomies expressed by the
Knowledge Management community can now be
expressed and linked to other types of knowledge (factual,
practical, etc.), as represented by the enhanced matrix
below (“Knowledge Types”):
Epistemological
Divisions
Factual
Practical
Knowledge of People,
Knowledge Knowledge Places & Things
KM
Dichotomies
Tacit v
Static
Personal v
Organisational
X(1,1)
X(2,1)
X(3,1)
X(4,1)
X(1,2)
X(2,2)
X(3,2)
X(4,2)
X(1,3)
X(2,3)
X(3,3)
X(4,3)
…
…
…
X(r-1,1)
…
X(r-1,2)
…
X(r-1,3)
…
X(r,1)
X(r,2)
X(r,3)
Figure 3. Knowledge Types
Further, the criteria developed earlier to distinguish
knowledge from opinion or false belief (“it must be true”;
“the perceiver must be in a position ...”, etc.) can also be
applied to the above matrix elements to determine what
constitutes actual knowledge. As the criteria could be
used to determine what constituted factual knowledge,
practical knowledge etc., then it follows that if the
knowledge dichotomies can be expressed in terms of
factual knowledge, practical knowledge, etc. (as
illustrated in the above enhanced matrix) then the
knowledge dichotomies themselves can also be assessed
to determine if they represent knowledge.
For example, suppose that a lecturer has a way of
teaching students that he thinks is successful. Does he
have knowledge? What type of knowledge is it, i.e. how
does it fit in to the “Knowledge Types” matrix? First of
all, if his understanding is unstated, then it is tacit.
Secondly, it is only knowledge if each of the following
hold:
• It must be true (does his teaching approach work?)
• The perceiver must believe this to be the case (if he
does not believe in his teaching approach and the
results it has, then he cannot claim to have
knowledge)
• The perceiver must be in a position to know this to be
the case (is he an experienced lecturer, well qualified,
etc.?)
Is the lecturer’s knowledge factual, practical, or of
people, things, etc.? His knowledge would be classed
primarily as practical because it relates to a skill, but there
are aspects of his lecturing skills that may be classed
within the other knowledge types (e.g. knowledge of
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
5
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
students and how they behave under certain stimuli). This
demonstrates that the knowledge classifications provided
by philosophers ought not to be viewed as mutually
exclusive, since knowledge need not be confined to one
knowledge type but can in fact be members of different
knowledge classes (i.e. factual knowledge and practical
knowledge and of people, etc.).
8. Bibliography
[1] Laudon, K. and Laudon, J. 1998. Information Systems and
the Internet, Drysden Press, Orlando.
7. Conclusion
Researchers and practitioners within the Knowledge
Management community are keen to exploit knowledge
for competitive advantage.
However, it is widely
accepted within this community that they have failed to
agree on a definition of what constitutes knowledge.
Rather, their efforts have been directed towards
describing different knowledge dichotomies (“tacit v
explicit”, etc.) and ways in which to manipulate
knowledge. This paper has categorised these dichotomies
under other knowledge types: factual knowledge;
practical knowledge; and knowledge of people, places and
things. Further, a definition of knowledge has been
derived to facilitate future development work on
Knowledge Management.
In summary, there are three broad types of knowledge:
1. there is “factual” knowledge;
2. there is “practical” knowledge; and
3. there is knowledge of people, places and things
Each of these knowledge types can be derived through
experience or as a result of rational thought, or, more
commonly, from a combination of both.
However, in order to differentiate knowledge from
blind belief or mere opinion, for something to count as
knowledge the following criteria must hold:
Criteria 1
It must be true
Criteria 2
The perceiver must
believe this to be the case
Criteria 3
modern organisation) in terms of a Knowledge
Management paradigm, built on solid conceptual
foundations, with a view to better understand and exploit
the Internet for competitive advantage.
The perceiver must be
in a position to know
this to be the case
Figure 4. Criteria for Knowledge
The next stage in the author’s research is to use the
above definition, criteria and types of knowledge to
revisit the building blocks of Knowledge Management,
from knowledge acquisition, development, through to
retention and review. The purpose of this research will be
to interpret Web Site development (a key area for the
[2] Berthon, P. et al. 1996. ‘The World Wide Web as an
advertising medium: Toward an understanding of conversion
efficiency’, Journal of Advertising Research, 36(10), 43-54.
[3] Runge, A. et al. 1999. ‘The Management of Business
Transactions through Electronic Contracts’, Proceedings of 10th
International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems
Applications, September, 824-831.
[4] Kyas, O. 1997. Internet Security, International Thomson
Computer Press, London.
[5] Skinner, M. 1999. ‘Network Security: How to Defend your
Network against Malicious Attacks’, Conference Proceedings of
the 16th World Conference on Computer Security, Audit and
Control, November, 495-522.
[6] Biggam, J. 1996. ‘Securing the Business I.T. Environment:
where are the solutions?’, Conference Proceedings of 6th Annual
BIT Conference, Manchester, November.
[7] Gollman, D. 2000. Computer Security, John Wiley & Sons,
Cambridge.
[8] Biggam, J. and Hogarth, A. 2000. ‘Information Systems
Security in the Age of Electronic Commerce’, Conference
Proceedings of Management Information Systems 2000, Lisbon,
June.
[9] Bennet, L. T. et al. 1996. ‘The development and validation of
instruments to assess the quality of Internet information: a
progress report’, available from
http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/faculty/gwilkinson/AACEp6paper.html
[10] Jeong, M. and Lambert, C. 1999. ‘Measuring the
information quality on lodging web sites’, International Journal
of Hospitality Information Technology, 1(1), 63-75.
[11] Probst, G. et al. 2000. Managing Knowledge, John Wiley &
Sons, West Sussex.
[12] Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. 1994. Competing for the
Future: Breakthrough Strategies for Seizing Control of Your
Industry and Creating the Markets of Tomorrow, Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
[13] Lester, T. 1996. ‘The Know-How of Knowledge’,
Information Strategy, November, 13-15.
[14] O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C. J. 1998. ‘If only we knew what
we knew’, California Management Review, 40(3), 154-174.
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
6
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2001
[15] Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. 1999. ‘Knowledge Management
Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits’, Communications of
AIS, Vol. 1.
[16] Andreu, R. and Sieber, S. 2000. ‘Learning Trajectories: the
Ultimate Requirement for Effective Knowledge Management’,
Conference Proceedings of Knowledge Management: Concepts
and Controversies, University of Warwick, February, p. 35.
[17] Sharifi, S. and Button, W. 2000. ‘Soulful Living: Against
Knowledge Management’, Conference Proceedings of
Knowledge Management: Concepts and Controversies,
University of Warwick, February, p. 65.
[18] The Concise Oxford Dictionary 1998. Ed. by D. Thomson,
9th edn, Oxford University Press, BCA, St Ives, England, p.753.
[19] Hume, D. 1957. Enquiries concerning the Human
Understanding and the Principles of Morals, ed. by L. A. SelbyBigge, Oxford.
[20] Gibson, J. 1968. Locke’s Theory of Knowledge and its
Historical Relations, Cambridge, England.
[21] Yolton, J. W. 1970. Locke and the Compass of Human
Understanding, Cambridge.
[22] Russell, B. 1988. A History of Western Philosophy, Unwin
Hyman, London.
[23] Locke, J. 1983. An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding, Dent, London.
[24] The Essential Descartes 1969. Ed. by M. Wilson, Mentor,
New American Library, Ontario.
[25] Sajama, S. and Kamppinen, M. 1987. A Historical
Introduction to Phenomenology, Croom Helm, New York.
[26] Dedron, P. 1978. Mathematics and Mathematicians 1,
trans. by Richard Sadler, The Open University Press, Milton
Keynes.
[27] Gettier, E. L. 1967. Knowledge and Belief, ed. by Phillips
Griffiths, Oxford, pp.144-146.
[31] Bohm, S. T. 2000. ‘The Process and Content of
Knowledge: a Critical Assessment of a Knowledge Project in a
Management Consultancy’, Conference Proceedings of
Knowledge Management: Concepts and Controversies,
University of Warwick, February, p. 26.
[32] Berquist, M. 2000. ‘The Peer Review Processa Qualifier for
Knowledge Dissemination and Legisimisation’, Conference
Proceedings of Knowledge Management:Concepts and
Controversies, University of Warwick, February, p. 39.
[33] Hislop, D. 2000. ‘Innovation Processes and the
Appropriation of Knowledge’, Conference Proceedings of
Knowledge Management: Concepts and Controversies,
University of Warwick, February, p. 56.
[34] Whitley, E. 2000. ‘Tacit and Explicit Knowledge:
Conceptual Confusion around the Commodification of
Knowledge’, Conference Proceedings of Knowledge
Management: Concepts and Controversies, University of
Warwick, February, p. 62.
[35] Marshall, N. and Sapsed, J. 2000. ‘The Limits of
Disembodied Knowledge: Challenges of Inter-project Learning
in the Production of Complex Products and Systems’,
Conference Proceedings of Knowledge Management: Concepts
and Controversies, University of Warwick, February, p. 82.
[36] Tovstiga, G. 2000. ‘Maximising the Strategic Impact of a
Firm’s Portfolio of Knowledge-Driven Capabilities’,
Conference Proceedings of Knowledge Management: Concepts
and Controversies, University of Warwick, February, p. 85.
[37] Spender, J-C. 2000. ‘Understanding Organisations as
Knowledge Systems’, Conference Proceedings of Knowledge
Management: Concepts and Controversies, University of
Warwick, February, p.97.
[38] Tsoukas, H. 2000. ‘On Organisational Knowledge and its
Management: an Ethnographic Investigation, Conference
Proceedings of Knowledge Management: Concepts and
Controversies, University of Warwick, February, p. 99.
University of Warwick (Business Process Resource Centre)
2000. Conference Proceedings of Knowledge Management:
Concepts and Controversies, February.
[28] A Dictionary of Philosophy 1983. Ed. by Antony Flew, Pan
Reference, Reading.
[29] Wensley, A. K. P. 2000. ‘Tools for Knowledge
Management’, Conference Proceedings of Knowledge
Management: Concepts and Controversies, University of
Warwick, February, p21.
[30] Shepherd, J. et al. 2000. ‘An Empirical Juxtaposition of the
Information Age and the Knowledge Economy: Unpacking the
Relationships between Knowledge Workers, Knowledge and
Knowledge Management Systems’, Conference Proceedings of
Knowledge Management: Concepts and Controversies,
University of Warwick, February, p. 25.
0-7695-0981-9/01 $10.00 (c) 2001 IEEE
7